Saturday, May 05, 2007

Rove is an atheist

I heard it from Matthew Yglesias who got it from Christopher Hitchens. According to Chris, it's no secret that when Rove is questioned about his religiosity he replies along the lines of, "I'm not fortunate enough to be a person of faith." The ensuing discussion seems to center around whether that's a reflection of a condescending mindset.

Generally, I don't think it is. I'm not an atheist but neither would I be considered a person of faith in this context. I don't believe in churches or in any particular religion. I believe in a universal source of power but I don't think it can save my soul. My spirtual beliefs are so complicated that I envy those people who can fully commit to a simplistic faith and find comfort in a God they believe can save theirs. But I don't find either position superior - morally or intellectually. It is what it is.

In Karl's case, there's probably an element of condescension in his pat answer but more likely it's a just a convenient politic response to a question that's bound to come up because he's surrounded by fundies.

I'm not at all surprised to learn he's atheist though. It's clear the man believes in nothing but power. If he was a "person of faith" he would have to believe he was going straight to hell for a lifetime's worth of deceit and outright malevolence. How on earth would he even drag himself out of bed in the morning, if he believed in the evangelical God?

Friday, May 04, 2007

A tale of 10 losers

Guest post by Edward CopelandGranted, I would be predisposed not to agree with most of what the would-be GOP presidential nominees would say last night, but, to me, the show seemed particularly pathetic, especially when watching Romney and Giuliani do their best to pander. Ex-Maverick McCain definitely seemed to come loaded for bear. So, in the interest of fairness, I'll list what I think were the best and worst moments from the debate for each of the ten eventual losers (unless, of course, the Democrats make the mistake of nominating Hillary Nothing-But-Ambition Clinton).

**********

SAM BROWNBACKBEST MOMENT: I’d push more a political solution along with a military solution in Iraq. And here I’d push a three-state, one- country solution in Iraq, with a Kurdish state, a Sunni state, a Shia state, with Baghdad as the federal city. I think we’ve got to push a political solution along with the military to get to a stable situation in Iraq, which is our key political issue of the day.

WORST MOMENT: (on the Terri Schiavo case) Yes, it should have, and it gave her the right and the family the right to take that appeal to the court. That’s what the Congress did. And her life is sacred. Even if it’s in that difficult moment that she’s in at that point in time, that life is sacred. And we should stand for life in all its circumstances.

**********

JIM GILMOUR

Was he even at the debate?

**********

RUDY GIULIANI

BEST MOMENT: I’d like to go back to the earlier question that you asked, because I think it really is important that we, you know, define the Republican party to fit today. And neither party has a monopoly on virtue or vice. That’s just a fallacy that we sometimes fall into.

WORST MOMENT: (exchange on whether he supports government funding for abortions)

Giuliani: I don’t. I support the Hyde amendment. I hate abortion. I wish people didn’t have abortions.Matthews: So you’re not for funding at all?Giuliani: I believe that the Hyde amendment should remain the law. States should make their decision. Some states decide to do it, most states decide not to do it. And I think that’s the appropriate way to have this decided.Matthews: Should New York -- when you were mayor of New York, should they have been paying for -- the state should have been paying for --Giuliani: That’s a decision New York made a long time ago, and New York --Matthews: And where were you on that?Giuliani: I supported it in New York. But I think in other places, people can come to a different decision.

**********

MIKE HUCKABEE

BEST MOMENT: Clearly, there was a real error in judgment [on Iraq], and that primarily had to do with listening to a lot folks who were civilians in suits and silk ties, and not listening enough to the generals with mud and blood on their boots and medals on their chest. Those generals told us early on it would take 300,000 troops to successfully go in and stabilize Iraq.

WORST MOMENT: (when asked to give the Bush administration a letter grade) I think it’s too early to give them the grade. You don’t give a student a grade in the middle of the exam. We’re still in the middle of the exam. Let’s wait and see how it turns out, then we can give the president a grade.

**********

DUNCAN HUNTER

BEST MOMENT: I think that global warming and the need to be energy independent gives us a great opportunity. I think we should bring together all of our colleges, our universities, the private sector, government laboratories and undertake what for this next generation will be a great opportunity and a great challenge to remove energy dependence on the Middle East and at the same time help the climate. I think we can do that. We need to take taxes down to zero for the alternative energy sources. We need to make sure that all the licensing from our laboratories goes to the private sector, goes to the American manufacturing sector for these energy systems. I think we can do it.

WORST MOMENT: And incidentally, on the Schiavo case, you know Ronald Reagan said on the question of life, when there’s a question, err on the side of life. I think Congress did the right thing.

**********

JOHN McCAIN

BEST MOMENT: (on stem cell research funding) I believe that we need to fund this. This is a tough issue for those of us in the pro-life community. I would remind you that these stem cells are either going to be discarded or perpetually frozen. We need to do what we can to relieve human suffering. It’s a tough issue. I support federal funding.

WORST MOMENT: My friends, when the majority leader of the United States Senate says we’ve lost the war, the men and women that are serving in Iraq reject that notion. And if we lost, then who won? Did al Qaeda win? When on the floor of House of Representatives -- they cheer. They cheer when they passed a withdrawal motion -- that is, a certain date for surrender, what were they cheering? Surrender? Defeat? We must win in Iraq. If we withdraw, there will be chaos, there will be genocide, and they will follow us home.

**********

RON PAUL

BEST MOMENT (tie): (when asked why he voted against the Iraq war) That’s a very good question. And you might ask the question why are 70 percent of the American people now wanting us out of there and why did the Republicans do so poorly last year. So I would suggest that we should look at foreign policy. I’m suggesting very strongly that we should have a foreign policy of non-intervention, the traditional American foreign policy and a Republican foreign policy.

BEST MOMENT (tie): I trust the freedom of expression, and that’s why we should never interfere with the Internet, that’s why I’ve never voted to regulate the Internet, even when there’s the temptation to put bad things on the Internet. Regulation of bad and good on the Internet should be done differently. But, no, there’s every reason to believe that we have enough freedom in this country to have freedom of expression, and that’s what is important.

WORST MOMENT: (on federal funding for stem-cell research) Programs like this are not authorized under the Constitution. The trouble with this -- issues like this is in Washington we either prohibit it or subsidize it. And the market should deal with it and the states should deal with it.

**********

MITT ROMNEY

BEST MOMENT: (on Terri Schiavo) I think we should generally let the family make a decision of this nature. ... In the case here, the courts decided that -- what they thought was the right thing to do, and then I think Jeb Bush and the Florida legislature did the right thing by saying we’ve got a concern. They looked over the shoulder of the court. But I think the decision of Congress to get involved was a mistake.

WORST MOMENT: (exchange on whether he would pursue stem-cell research)

Romney: It certainly will. Altered Nuclear Transfer, I think, is perhaps the best course.Matthews: Embryonic. Embryonic.Romney: Altered Nuclear Transfer creates embryo-like cells that can be used for stem cell research. In my view, that’s the most promising source. I have a deep concern about curing disease. I have a wife that has a serious disease that could be affected by stem cell research and others, but I will not create new embryos through cloning or through embryo farming because that would be creating life for the purpose of destroying it.Matthews: And you won’t take any from these fertility clinics to use either.Romney: I’m happy to allow that -- or I shouldn’t say happy. It’s fine for that to be allowed to be legal. I won’t use our government funds for that. Instead, I want our government funds to be used on Dr.Hurlbut’s method, which is Altered Nuclear Transfer.

**********

TOM TANCREDO

BEST MOMENT: Yeah. Karl Rove would certainly not be in the White House that I inhabited.

WORST MOMENT: Raising his hand to indicate he doesn't believe in evolution.

**********

TOMMY THOMPSON

BEST MOMENT: I believe the al-Maliki government should be required to vote as to whether or not they want America in their country. If they vote yes, it gives us a legitimacy for being there. If they vote no, we should get out.

WORST MOMENT: (when asked if private employers should be able to fire someone because they are gay) I think that is left up to the individual business. I really sincerely believe that that is an issue that business people have to got to make their own determination as to whether or not they should be.

Thursday, May 03, 2007

Police brutality at LA rally

I've had trouble exercising any but the most reptilian portion of my brain lately, so I don't have much to say about the police swarming in on a peaceful May Day rally in LA and doing their damnedest to provoke a full-scale riot. Seriously, check out this post by The Unapologetic Mexican; at the very least, you really have to watch the two videos at the end, especially the second one, which shows the LAPD attacking local journalists. So far as I can see, it's impossible to interpret the actions of the police as designed to do anything other than escalate the violence.

The police claim, on one video, that they tried to break up the rally because a group of young men were "provoking" them. If true, I think this may be the most damning explanation possible. A handful of youngsters taunt a group of police, so the police start firing tear gas and rubber bullets into a crowd of thousands of peaceful protesters? After driving them from the park, they continue to drive them down residential streets, shooting rubber bullets at them? They eventually try to block them in so they arrest all of them for...what, exactly? I don't necessarily agree with everything Nezua says about the larger implications of this action (though I do think this is no time for complacency), but that doesn't matter. What does matter is that the actions of the LAPD can in no way be defended or excused. The only petition I could find online is on the ANSWER web site (sigh), but I urge everyone to contact the mayor of LA somehow or other. The ANSWER petition demands the firing of LAPD chief Bratton, but I added that a major review and overhaul or training and operations needs to be undertaken to prevent such incidents recurring the future (you should spirit yourself off to write something, secure in the knowledge that it will be more compelling and less bureaucratic than the line I just wrote). I think it would be very short-sighted, if not foolish, to think this is only of importance to people currently living in LA.

Tyranny, thy name is Hugo

What's more accurate, the Soviet Union of Venezuela or the National Socialist Republic of Venezuela? Take your pick. There may not yet be totalitarianism in that country, but it's pretty clear where Chavez is going with his slice-by-slice dismantling of anything and everything resembling liberal democracy.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has threatened to take over the country's private banks and largest steelmaker.

But he said he would refrain from nationalisation if the firms began to work in the "national interest".

Which is to say, if they do what Chavez wants them to do. That's the national interest in Venezuela. How grotesque. I defy anyone to defend what Chavez is doing.

**********

Oh, here's a photo from the Globe. It would be more amusing if it weren't for the fact that the head honcho is a tyrant and that his pals aren't much better. "From left to right, Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, Cuban Vice-President Carlos Lage, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Bolivian President Evo Morales and Haitian President Rene Preval prepare for the official photograph during their Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas meeting in Tintorero, Venezuela."

One smart octopus

I came across this photo at the Globe today: "An octopus named Octi attempts to open a bottle using its tentacles to get to the food inside at the National Aquarium of New Zealand in the town of Napier."

Curious -- who wouldn't be? -- I did a little research and came across an article at The New Zealand Herald. It seems Octi can use two of her tentacles "to twist the lid off a bottle to get to her dinner". It takes her "2 1/2 minutes when there's a tempting crab inside". And that's not all. She "has also learned to rise to the top of the tank, eye up the keeper and squirt water in his face".

"A lot of people don't realise octopuses are very intelligent," said the aquarium's manager. "They are observant and extremely interactive." And friendly.

An exorcism

O.K., I confess. I am watching Keith Olbermann's pre-game to the GOP presidential debate. I'm loving the fact that Keith is, well, being Keith and that his audience tonight potentially has a ton of usually loyal FOX News fans. Across Red America heads are spinning as they listen to Keith berate their Commander Guy. And Keith's not alone. Read this GOP-on-the-ropes spin those tender-eared Republicans had to hear:

Howard Fineman: [T]he problem here is that the old conservative coalition, which was built by Ronald Reagan, in who's building we are, and really perfected, if not over-perfected, by George W. Bush, is now falling apart. It's falling apart on defense It's falling apart on government, because George Bush has been a big government conservative so a lot of them dislike him for that, and a lot of evangelical Christians don't find any of these candidates to their liking. So those three parts of the conservative movement have fallen apart before our eyes and with it the Republican party over Iraq.

Ouch. MSNBC's not going to win over many FOX viewers with insight like that. This GOP debate night* is turning out to be more fun than I thought it would be.

*I will not be watching the actual debate however. The two-tuner DVR is full-up on Thursday's. Earl, Office, Survivor, Scrubs, CSI easily beat a bunch of sorry looking grumpy old men for my viewing dollar.

So long, timeline

President Bush and congressional leaders began negotiating a second war funding bill yesterday, with Democrats offering the first major concession: an agreement to drop their demand for a timeline to bring troops home from Iraq.

Democrats backed off after the House failed, on a vote of 222 to 203, to override the president's veto of a $124 billion measure that would have required U.S. forces to begin withdrawing as early as July. But party leaders made it clear that the next bill will have to include language that influences war policy. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) outlined a second measure that would step up Iraqi accountability, "transition" the U.S. military role and show "a reasonable way to end this war."We made our position clear. He made his position clear. Now it is time for us to try to work together," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said after a White House meeting. "But make no mistake: Democrats are committed to ending this war."

Which is good, of course, but, in my view, a timeline for withdrawal was never a good idea -- or, rather, never good politically for the Democrats. (See here.)Still, I have little confidence that the White House will negotiate and seek common ground in good faith. One thing we know about Bush, after all, is that compromise is never a desirable option and that he only pursues it reluctantly and when all other avenues to getting what he wants are closed.Which means that the Democrats needs to keep up the pressure. Aside from taking a principled position against the war, they have played this extremely well so far -- pushing for withdrawal, forcing a Bush veto, and taking advantage of disagreement in the Republican ranks. Bush must still be held accountable for this disastrous war, but the Democrats can show true leadership if they work out a compromise, with or without Bush, that appeals to those Republicans who are ready to join them in working to end this ongoing madness.

So what do you think about incest?

By Michael J.W. StickingsThat's a serious question, and I ask it in all seriousness. Indeed, I think everyone who cares about liberal democracy needs to take it seriously. And why is that? Because it concerns individual liberty and the restrictions the state may legitimately place on individual liberty.In 1967, when he was still justice minister, future Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau famously said that "there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation". He was answering reporters' questions about legislative revisions to the Criminal Code, and he was specifically addressing homosexuality. It is his famous line that is remembered, and often misquoted, but he also said that the legislation was meant to bring Canadian laws up to the standards of "contemporary society". And his basic argument was that "what's done in private between adults... doesn't concern the Criminal Code". It is only when behaviour is public that it is "a different matter".But what does this mean? Is there no place for the state in the bedroom of the nation? Surely not. The state -- the liberal state, one with a rule of law that protects individual liberty -- may intervene, for example, where sexual activity is not consensual. The state may enact laws against rape, for example. The problem with Trudeau's assertion is that it implies that all private sexual acts are consensual, that is, entered into freely by both, or all, parties. That is clearly not the case. Rape and other forms of sexual abuse (although I recognize that rape is usually more about power than about sex) are the clearest cases, but what about, say, sado-masochism, or domination and submission? Can we assume that everyone who enters into such activity -- and into such relationships -- have freely consented? Surely not.So what does this have to do with incest? As Jeff Jacoby wrote in yesterday's Boston Globe -- and I recommend that you read the entire piece -- adult incest (that is, presumably, incest between consenting adults) may soon be legal in the United States as well as in other liberal democracies -- if, to an extent, it is not already.Legal proscriptions against incest may go back thousands of years, but this particular debate begins with the Supreme Court's ruling in a prominent case regarding sexual activity, Lawrence v. Texas. In that 2003 ruling, the Court held that laws prohibiting sodomy were unconstitutional. It was a 6-3 ruling. Writing for the minority, Justice Scalia said this: "State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are... called into question by today's decision." I rarely agree with Scalia, but he was right, in a way, about this: The Lawrence ruling was the thin end of the wedge. If sodomy is permissible -- that is, if the state has no right to prohibit it -- what else must be permissible?Go through Scalia's list. What do you think?I realize I'm venturing out onto thin ice here, but I want to stress that I am addressing this matter legally and philosophically, not personally. If I think that something should be legal, it does not necessarily follow that I do or approve of that something. So: I do think that sodomy should be permissible. (After all, sodomy was just a stand-in for homosexuality. (Legalizing it meant legalizing homosexuality, although, of course, the legality applies to heterosexual activity as well.) And "permissible" isn't even the right word for it. In my understanding of individual liberty, sodomy is a right, which is to say, people (and by that I mean, of course, consenting adults) have a right to perform sodomy. I am also a staunch advocate of same-sex marriage (not just "civil unions"). I can make a case for the legalization of prostitution. And I certainly do not see any good reason for the state to ban masturbation, adultery, and fornication. Obscenity is a more complicated matter because it is public as well as private. Indeed, there are good and justifiable reasons to prohibit obscene speech in public, for example, or the showing of obscene images on the public airwaves. It all depends, however, on the meaning of "obscene," and this is, needless to say, a source of contention. For me, the bigamy, adult incest, and bestiality are far more troubling. Bestiality ought to be prohibited because it is impossible for an animal to consent to a sexual act with a human being. But what about bigamy (or polygamy) and adult incest? What if those engaging in it have consented to it? Does the state have any right to intervene? And what does it mean to "consent"? Put another way, what does it mean to be "free"?This issue is well beyond the scope of this post, of course, and is not about to be resolved easily. Again, what I recommend is that you read Jacoby's piece, which looks at how the issue of adult incest is playing out both in the U.S. and in Europe. There are currently legal challenges to prohibitions on incest in both the U.S. and Germany -- in the U.S. the basis for the challenge is Lawrence. I cannot confirm this, but Jacoby mentions that "incest is no longer a criminal offense in Belgium, Holland, and France" and that "Sweden already permits half-siblings to marry". Also, Eugene Volokh notes that incest is already legal in some instances in the U.S. -- for example, in Rhode Island marriages "of kindred" are allowed "among the Jewish people".See also Ed Morrissey, who responds to Jacoby's piece with a thoughtful argument for "law [that] can validly reflect a moral consensus of the community without violating an emanation of a penumbra of the Constitution". I suspect that in this area (as in most others) I am much more liberal -- and by that I mean more tolerant of "alternative" behaviour and more willing to expand the realm of individual liberty -- than Ed, but I, too, acknowledge that the law -- even in a liberal democracy -- must address the moral requirements of the community. There is a certain historicism to this view -- that the law reflect the "moral consensus" of the time -- but even universal principles need to be applied to a particular context. In other words, we may agree that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (or property) are universal rights even as we disagree about what they mean in a particular place at a particular time.At some point even a free society has to say no. As this debate shows, however, the line between what is permissible and what is not is fluid. Incest is one of the more prominent taboos in our society, and it seems not just tawdry but repugnant (and, yes, immoral) even to discuss its possible legalization. But what are the arguments against it? That it leads to genetically defective offspring? Yes, but what if no procreation is involved? That it involves coercion? Yes, but this is consensual adult incest, not incest with a minor. (And, besides, a lot of other activity, and not just sexual activity, involves coercion to some degree. Should the state prohibit any activity where there is no clear consent?) That it is socially unacceptable, that there is a moral consensus against it? Yes, but public opinion of what is acceptable and unacceptable changes over time. It wasn't so long ago, after all, that there were prohibitions against interracial marriage in the U.S. And the struggle to extend marriage rights to homosexuals, needless to say, goes on. Okay, those examples involve marriage, not sexual activity. Then go back a few years to Lawrence. It wasn't so long ago that homosexual activity was criminal.Does this all mean that I support the legalization of adult incest. No. (Please, let me be clear about that.) This post is not about advocating for one side or the other of that particular debate but about addressing the much larger debate regarding individual liberty and the limits thereof in a liberal democratic society. Given that the realm of liberty seems to be expanding, despite high-profile efforts to constrain it, which is to say, given that we are increasingly free to do and say and see and hear more and more things, what are the appropriate limits that may be imposed -- or, rather, that we may impose -- on our freedom?

Wednesday, May 02, 2007

Le Débat

By Michael J.W. StickingsGet your Sarkozy-Royal debate coverage here. The assessment: "Despite [some] clashes, neither candidate appeared to score a decisive blow."Some key excerpts:Royal: "I want to get France out of the situation it's in today... I want to be the president of the republic who's going to make a France where aggression and violence are in retreat, who's going to make a France that will win the battle against unemployment and a high cost of living, who will also enable inequalities to recede, because I believe that all these kinds of insecurity in daily life -- social insecurity -- call for new rules of the game, call for a new political system, call basically for more effective politicians than those of the last five years and, no doubt, beyond."Sarkozy: "I want to create that change in France that others have conducted in other countries, so that France remains faithful to its identity. There's no reason why we should not have full employment, that we should not manage to have immigration under control. I want workers to be respected. I want to carry the question of purchasing power. I want to protect the French of companies moving abroad."You can read more about their respective policies here.

The Democrats and the NBA

By Michael J.W. StickingsOver at SI.com, basketball columnist Jack McCallum has written an amusing piece comparing each of the NBA playoff teams to a Democratic presidential candidate. The analogies aren't "perfect," he admits, but they seem to fit. He doesn't include my team, the Toronto Raptors, but, then, "they aren't eligible to vote".Read the piece in full for McCallum's explanations. Here's how he breaks down the two fields:

Chicago Bulls = Dennis Kucinich

Cleveland Cavaliers = Joe Biden

Dallas Mavericks = Hillary Clinton

Phoenix Suns = John Edwards

Detroit Pistons = Barack Obama

San Antonio Spurs = Bill Richardson

Houston Rockets (or Utah Jazz or New Jersey Nets) = Christopher Dodd

Golden State Warriors = Mike Gravel

So what does it say that I admire the Suns (and their great Canadian, Steve Nash), that I respect the Spurs, and that I'm pulling for the Warriors to beat the Mavs?

One quibble: The Pistons aren't exactly a team of grand vision. They're more workmanlike than anything else, and they're too easy to dislike. Solid, competent, but not flashy. Maybe Edwards is more like the working-class Pistons, Obama more like the run-and-gun Suns. (Though Edwards is too clean to be the Pistons. Maybe he needs to be more like them.)

The Miami Heat, the Orlando Magic, the Washington Wizards, the Los Angeles Lakers, the Denver Nuggets aren't included. (Are they too lowly for the Democratic field?) Make up your own analogies. For example, the Lakers are a team coached by a zen master, superstar with a massive ego, and a bunch of young kids. The Heat have a young superstar, a coach who's seen better days, and a bunch of creaky, sagging veterans. Are the Heat John Kerry? (Hey, they won last year, just like Kerry won back in '04.) And what about Al Gore? Is he the Lakers? (Well, I think he's much, much better than that.) And then there's Tom Vilsack, who's already dropped out of the race. Competent, but uninspiring. Hmmm.

(Maybe, switching parties, the Heat are John McCain. But what about Giuliani, Romney, the Thompsons, etc.?)

Le Pen says abstain

French far-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen has urged supporters not to vote in Sunday's presidential run-off between Nicolas Sarkozy and Segolene Royal.

Mr Le Pen said that neither candidate deserved support from the voters who backed him in first round polling.

This could be bad for Sarkozy, who has been courting Le Pen's supporters with his xenophobic authoritarianism and who could use Le Pen's 10.4 percent of the vote.Still, this is a good sign that Le Pen's neo-fascism has been marginalized. He made it to the second round last time, where he was trounced by Chirac, but this time he finished fourth. The fact that he doesn't like the two alternatives, including Sarkozy, suggests that something is going well in French politics, that voters and politicians alike are looking for a new way forward in which Le Pen's bigotry has no place.

Truth by numbers

By Michael J.W. StickingsSo was it "Mission Accomplished" on May 1, 2003? Of course not. And, just to prove it, Think Progress has the numbers, comparing the situation then and now.(For an intelligent voice on the right, see Ed Morrissey, who points out Bush never said that the war was over. Which may be true, but, nonetheless, there was a cocky swagger to Bush back then, and his people should have known better than to allow him to give a speech in front of a "Mission Accomplished" banner. Which suggests that he -- and they -- were happy to give the impression of victory. Libby has more on Ed here.)

Après moi, Gordon Brown

By Michael J.W. StickingsAu revoir, Tony Blair.As the The Guardian is reporting, "Blair began the final countdown to his departure [yesterday] by promising a resignation announcement next week and anointing Gordon Brown as his successor". Said Blair: "Within the next few weeks I won't be prime minister of this country. In all probability, a Scot will become prime minister of the United Kingdom, someone who has built one of the strongest economies in the world and who, as I've always said, will make a great prime minister for Britain." (Yes, Brown is a Scot.)Blair and Brown, who don't like each other, are making nice (in a phony way), and Blair is doing what he can, so it would seem, to ensure a smooth transition of power (for fear of David Cameron's Tories, one suspects), but in some key ways and on some key issues a Brown premiership will be much different than the Blair premiership. Start with the Iraq War, which, as Kevin Drum rightly notes, Brown has never much supported -- which means that "the British withdrawal from Iraq will proceed, if anything, on an even quicker pace than before" -- for my comments on that withdrawal, see here and here. Needless to say, there won't be quite as much warmth between London and Washington as there has been in recent years.Anyway, get ready for a seven-week leadership campaign -- which Brown is almost certain to win. And get ready for the retirement of a still-youthful and -energetic Blair. Whatever will he do with himself?For my recent thoughts on Blair, see here. For more on Brown, see my brother's post here.

Loyalty and dissent

By Michael J.W. StickingsIn much of the world, today is May Day -- or Labour Day, or International Workers' Day.In the U.S., which doesn't much go in for socialism, it's Loyalty Day.Yes, Loyalty Day. (It used to be Americanization Day, which sounds even worse.) And Bush proclaimed it so.To be fair, some of Bush's platitudinous proclamation was fine: "We believe deeply in freedom and self-government..." That Bush is requesting loyalty at a time when America, under his "leadership," is embroiled in a disastrous foreign war -- and that he is requesting it on the fourth anniversary of his "Mission Accomplished" speech -- is not fine. Not at all.In fact, it's all quite sickening. (Bob Geiger explains.)And, I must say, I find the whole idea of state-ordered (or even state-suggested) loyalty distressingly unpleasant. It's all rather -- how shall I put it? -- Khmer Rougish.After all, what does it mean to be loyal?Bush referred to "reaffirming our allegiance to our Nation," but even that is vague and collectivist. So is just about flying the flag? Not for Bush, who connects it to the military. So is it about "the patriotic service of the men and women who wear our Nation's uniform with honor and decency". To a point, but is it also about supporting what those men and women are doing in uniform? Beyond that, is it about supporting those who sent those men and women off to war? Is it about supporting the state, or the leader?Which is my point -- where does loyalty stop and 1984-ish love for Big Brother begin? It seems to me that Bush and many of those on his side of the political divide demand the sort of allegiance that pushes genuine patriotism into the dangerous gray area between conscious loyalty and unconscious devotion.When it's beaten into you, even in speech, you may have no choice but to acquiesce, to love that which has destroyed you.Sameness is celebrated, difference is abhorred. If you're not with us, you're against us.Which is profoundly un-American, I would contend, unless this is precisely what America, under Bush, has become.Born in revolution, an ongoing experiment, a fusion of ancient and modern thought, a nation of noble ideals sustained by liberal and progressive ideas, America was never meant to be something to which one would be unconsciously devoted.

So on this Loyalty Day, with the country at war, with the Constitution under threat, with the noble ideals of the Declaration of Independence receding ever further into oblivion, I say this:

Bad Olmert

By Michael J.W. StickingsReaders of this blog may remember that last year I defended Israel for defending itself against Hezbollah and others -- such as Iran, which supports Hezbollah -- who wish its annihilation. They may also remember that I found Israel's heavy-handed military operation in Lebanon not only wanting but deeply troubling.I am a friend of Israel, but my support was conditional. I opposed the escalation of its ground offensive following initial air strikes, for example, and generally objected to what I found to be excessive use of force. I supported diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict and welcomed the U.N.-sponsored cease-fire.Well, it seems now that Israel itself has a problem with Israel's actions. Here's Haaretz:

The partial report by a government-appointed committee probing the Second Lebanon War on Monday accused Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of "severe failure" in exercising judgment, responsibility and caution during the outset of the war.The report, [released today], says Olmert acted hastily in leading the country to war last July 12, without having a comprehensive plan.The prime minister, the report said, "bears supreme and comprehensive responsibility for the decisions of 'his' government and the operations of the army."

And there's more:

"The prime minister made up his mind hastily, despite the fact that no detailed military plan was submitted to him and without asking for one," the report said. "He made his decision without systematic consultation with others, especially outside the IDF, despite not having experience in external-political and military affairs."Olmert was also censured for failing to "adapt his plans once it became clear that the assumptions and expectations of Israel's actions were not realistic and were not materializing.""All of these," the report said, "add up to a serious failure in exercising judgment, responsibility and prudence."

In addition to Olmert's myriad self-defeating failings, Defense Secretary Amir Peretz "did not have knowledge or experience in military, political or governmental matters. He also did not have good knowledge of the basic principles of using military force to achieve political goals". And "he made his decisions during this period without systemic consultations with experienced political and professional experts, including outside the security establishment".Ouch. Harsh criticism, but fully deserved. For both of them.Israel has a right to defend itself -- I stand by that -- but it hardly does any good to defend itself so incompetently.

It's funny because it's true

Well, it's that time of year again. As some of us drain the academic year to its bitterest dregs (or something), I feel the noose of impending unemployment drawing ever tighter around my neck. Like Tuco at the beginning of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, I sit here on an indifferent ass that has seen better days, waiting -- or, more accurately, hoping -- for some obliging department to come along and shoot through the rope before I'm left hanging. At this point I'd gladly take a 6-6 at Cal State Fullerton teaching political theory, American government, criminology, Japanese politics, environmental theory and policy, computer programming and an evening class in calligraphy. Hell, I'd just teach Kafka in all of them. "Professor, this is Constitutional Law. Shouldn't we be learning about habeas corpus or The Bill of Rights or something rather than reading The Trial?" "Look, kids, your naivete is touching, but those things aren't going to be around by the time you graduate. Trust me, this'll be much more useful in the world you're going to be living in."

So, do I have a point here? Not especially, though I do want to warn any of our readers who may be considering the folly of graduate school (*cough* Lily *cough*) just how dark their future is. (While you're fearing for your sanity a few years down the road, definitely read this as well.) Actually, that's not even true. By the time those just beginning graduate school leave, that whole generation of baby boomers should be retiring, or at least dying off. So, really, I just wanted an excuse to post this cartoon, which is quite droll.

Puff the Magic Dragon

Is it a coating of non-stick Teflon that keeps things from sticking to Rollicking Rush Limbaugh, or is it just ordinary slime he's covered with? Perhaps, if he bothers to explain himself at all, he will tell us that public figures like Barack Obama are fair game for race baiting while college girls are not, but I'm waiting to see the kind of reaction we got to Imus's comment. I'm waiting in fact to hear any update on the story that appeared in Crooks and Liars last Friday much less the racist barb he tossed at the Illinois Senator last January. It may be a long wait.

Rush playing "Barack the Magic Negro" to the tune of the silly Peter, Paul & Mary song from the '60s on his radio show is only the latest in a career of ugliness, pettyness, maliciousness, and malignant bullying that should have ended years ago. Whether it's blatant racism or whether it's calling an adolescent girl a dog on nationwide TV, there have been too many incidents egregious enough to have him fired and blacklisted -- and yet here he is, smelly phallic cigar in his fat mouth, stinking up the pristine Florida air and the public airwaves.

It's time the media stop hiding behind a disclaimer and fire the bastard.

By Michael J.W. StickingsIn anticipation of summer, here's a lovely (and justifiably famous) painting by the French neo-impressionist/pointillist Georges Seurat. (There are different English versions of the title, which is why I'm going with the original French here.)

You may remember that Cameron admires this painting (fixating on the child in white in the center) during Ferris Bueller's day off in 1986 -- one hundred years after its completion. It's at The Art Institute of Chicago.

Sarkozy's cynical appeal to the center

By Michael J.W. StickingsWith Royal and Bayrou seeking common ground, and with Bayrou seeming to give his supporters a subtle cue to support Royal in next Sunday's second round of the French presidential election, Sarkozy is now himself trying to woo the center. At a rally in Paris yesterday, Sarkozy explicitly reached out to Bayrou's supporters. He reiterated the rightist views that form the core of his platform, but "[h]e said the views of Mr Bayrou's supporters would be taken into account and he offered to introduce some proportional representation in parliament".Aw, how generous. Politicians will say anything in a pinch, won't they? -- and Sarkozy is certainly in one. He's the favourite to win the presidency, given how well he did in the first round, but enough support from Bayrou's center could put Royal over the top.And here's the problem for Sarkozy: I don't think he's on the hard right, but his platform seems to be a mixture of neo-liberalism, xenophobia, authoritarianism. And during the campaign leading up to the first round he made a concerted effort to reach out to Le Pen's rightist National Front, a movement that is truly hard right. And that effort seems to have worked -- Sarkozy won and Le Pen ended up a distant fourth. And now, after all that, he's making an appeal to the center?

Fucking the victims of Katrina

As the winds and water of Hurricane Katrina were receding, presidential confidante Karen Hughes sent a cable from her State Department office to U.S. ambassadors worldwide.Titled "Echo-Chamber Message" -- a public relations term for talking points designed to be repeated again and again -- the Sept. 7, 2005, directive was unmistakable: Assure the scores of countries that had pledged or donated aid at the height of the disaster that their largesse had provided Americans "practical help and moral support" and "highlight the concrete benefits hurricane victims are receiving."

Many of the U.S. diplomats who received the message, however, were beginning to witness a more embarrassing reality. They knew the U.S. government was turning down many allies' offers of manpower, supplies and expertise worth untold millions of dollars. Eventually the United States also would fail to collect most of the unprecedented outpouring of international cash assistance for Katrina's victims.

Allies offered $854 million in cash and in oil that was to be sold for cash. But only $40 million has been used so far for disaster victims or reconstruction, according to U.S. officials and contractors. Most of the aid went uncollected, including $400 million worth of oil. Some offers were withdrawn or redirected to private groups such as the Red Cross. The rest has been delayed by red tape and bureaucratic limits on how it can be spent.

And here's a revealing statistic: "Overall, the United States declined 54 of 77 recorded aid offers from three of its staunchest allies: Canada, Britain and Israel, according to a 40-page State Department table of the offers that had been received as of January 2006."

I don't know what to say. Essentially, the U.S. government -- with the knowledge and inaction of the Bush Administration, which covered it up -- denied Katrina victims massive amounts of foreign aid and support, even aid and support from America's closest friends.

How fucked up is that? And how reprehensible?

The normal and ineffectual processes and operations of government may be partly to blame, but so too is the Bush Administration. And Bush himself, who must be held responsible for the government's response to Katrina.

For what we know now is that it wasn't just FEMA's slow response to the hurricane that was the problem. It was also failure on a massive scale to provide aid and support to the victims.That is what is truly appalling.

Bloody Basra

Although the violence pales in comparison to Baghdad's, seven British soldiers have been killed in Basra in April, three in gunfire and four when a roadside bomb tore through their Warrior fighting vehicle. The deaths pushed Britain's monthly toll in Iraq to 11, the highest since 27 of its troops were killed during the invasion of March 2003, according to the Web site icasualties.org.The spike in violence comes as Britain begins to disengage from southern Iraq, leaving Shiite political parties and their associated militias to duke it out over the spoils. At stake is control of political patronage in Iraq's second-largest city and of the billions of dollars in oil that flow through the country's only seaport.

The war's proponents will say that this is why withdrawal is a bad idea. If this is what is happening in Basra, consider what will happen in Baghdad when the U.S. leaves. But the upsurge of violence in Basra predates the phased British withdrawal, and the situation there -- intra-sectarian violence -- may be one that needs to play out without the presence of an occupying force (the presence of which provides a target for its opponents and may actually be making the situation worse).Regardless, what the situation in Basra indicates is that the violence in Iraq isn't limited to Baghdad and largely Sunni areas like Anbar but is in fact ubiquitous. Which means that the U.S.-led surge in Baghdad and Anbar, even if successful, would only do so much to pacify the country and provide the stability necessary for the Iraqi government to succeed.The Iraq of today is closer to chaos than to stability -- or, at least, stability is a long way off. And it is what it is today not just because of the explosion of long-dormant (because long-suppressed) sectarianism but because the war/occupation -- which I refer to jointly as the Iraq War -- has been so grossly mismanaged.